Conference on the Languages of the Caucasus, 7-9.12.2007, Max Planck Institute EVA, Leipzig
Category of Evidentiality and Mirativity in Chechen.
Zarina Molochieva
University of Leipzig
0. Introduction. Chechen belongs to the Nakh branch of the Nakh-Daghestanian family.
Typologically, Chechen is a head-final, case-using, ergative and dependent-marking
language. Basic word order is SOV; no person agreement. The simple verbs employ
gender agreement that is marked by a consonant prefix, there are 4 of them.
A short outline of TAM system:
Each TAM form is based upon one of the three stems, namely the infinitive stem, the
present tense stem and the recent past stem. The highest level of temporal and aspectual
differentiation is represented in the past-reference tenses.
Table 1.
TENSE/ASPECT
Present
Present Progressive
Simple Past
Past Progressive Witnessed
Past Witnessed
Perfect
Pluperfect
Imperfect
Inferential Progressive
Unwitnessed Past
Inferential Unwitnessed Past
Inferential Unwitnessed Pluperfect
Inferential ProgressiveUnwitnessed
Pluperfect
MORPHOLOGY
-u
CVBsim + cop.PRS
-i
CVBsim + cop.PST
-ra
-(i)na
-(i)niera
-ura
eeca ‘take’
oec-u
oec-ush vu
ec-i
oec-ush vara
eci-ra
ec-na
ec-niera
ec-ura
CVBsim + cop.PST
oec-ush xilla
CVBant + cop.PST
CBVant + cop.PPL
ec-na xilla
ec-na xilliera
CBVsim + cop.PPL
oec-ush xilliera
The phenomena of evidentiality in Chechen may be grouped into three types, namely the
opposition of the witnessed/unwitnessed actions (Aikhenvald 2004), mirativity, and
addressee-directed dative constructions.
1.1. Witnessed Past: The morphological marking of the Witnessed Past is the verbal
suffix -ra. The Witnessed Past is used if the speaker directly witnessed the event.
1.
2.
Zaara
hwa-j-ie-na.*/**
Z.NOM
here-J-come-PRF
‘Zara has come.’ (+> and she is still here)
Zaara
hwa-j-ie-ra.
Z.NOM
here-J-come-PSTW
‘Zara came.’ (I saw her come and then go)
[Perfect]
[Past Witnessed]
1.2. Inferential Unwitnessed Past:
The Inferential Unwitnessed Past is the converb anterior plus the past form of copula.
This tense denotes perfective actions which took place in the past and are still actual for
the present moment; it also says that the speaker has not witnessed the action.
3.
Zaara
j-ie-na
xilla
Zara.NOM
J-come-CVBant
cop.PST
‘Zara has come, (e.g. I can see her shoes in the hall but I didn't see her come;
expected/usual situation concurrent with my expectations).’
[Inferential Unwitnessed Past]
4.
So
naabariehw vohw-j-ozh-na
xilla.
1s.NOM
sleep.LOC
down-J-fall-CVBant cop.PST
‘I fell down (from the bed) in sleep (I didn’t see that; in the morning I was lying
on the floor).
[Inferential Unwitnessed Past]
5.
Zaara-s
suuna
kuoch
iici-ra.
Z.ERG
1s.DAT
dress.NOM take-WPST
‘Zara bought a dress for me (I have seen that).’
[Past Witnessed]
6.
Zaara-s
suuna
kuoch
ec-na
xilla.
Z.ERG
1s.DAT
dress.NOM take-CVBant cop.PST
‘Zara bought a dress for me (I didn’t see that) (+> I have not seen this dress
before).’
[Inferential Unwitnessed Past]
1.3. The Inferential Unwitnessed Pluperfect:
Indirect evidence is expressed by the past form of the copula xilla. The event happened in
the past and the speaker didn’t witness it.
7.
Zaara
Z.NOM
so
1s.NOM
c’a
qaach-lie
home arrive-CVBpost
dwa-j-ax-na
away-J-CVBant
xilliera
cop.PPL
‘Zara had left before I arrived (I didn’t see her and I was told about her visit, or I
saw the cookies she had brought).’
[Inferential Unwitnessed Pluperfect]
8.
Muusa-s quorash
hwa-b-iax-na
xilliera.
M.ERG pear.PL.NOM
here-B-pick-CVBant cop.PPL
‘Musa had picked the pears (I did not see the event, but I saw a basket full of pears
that he had picked).’ [The speaker can confirm the result or vouch for it.]
[Inferential Unwitnessed Pluperfect]
9. Maliika-s
M.ERG
qoor-ash
hwa-b-iax-na
pear-PL.NOM here-B-pick-na
xilla
cop.PST
ael
QUOT
d-iici-ra
soe-ga
Muusa-s.
D-tell-PSTW 1s.OBL-ALL
M.ERG
‘Musa told me that Malika picked the pears.’(The conversation with Musa is
seen/experienced by the speaker, but not the very event.)
Types of inference:
- results of the event, the speaker has evidence for the event or has seen the visible
traces of the event.
- hearsay, the speaker has the information from reliable source: (he has heard about
the event a lot of times or an eyewitness has told him about what had happened).
Table 2.
TIME OF
EVENT
TIME OF
EVIDENCE
TYPE OF
EVIDENCE
TIME OF
REFERENCE
Present
now
now
witnessed
now
Recent Past
past
-
Ø
past
Imperfect
past
-
Ø
past
Pluperfect
past
-
Ø
past
Perfect
past
-
Ø
now
Past Witnessed
past
past
witnessed
past
Inferential UW PST
past
now
inferential
now
Inferential UW PPL
past
past
inferential
past
2. Miratiity:
Mirativity has often been considered as an extension of the evidential system rather than
a category of its own. But DeLancey (1997) and Aikhenvald (2004) have shown that
there are languages whereas the mirative does not depend on evidentials, for instance, in
Tsakhur, Wichita, Tariana, Makah, Cupeño. Moreover, in some languages, there is
mirativity, but no evidentiality (Kham) (Aikhenvald) (2004).
Chechen has the category of mirativity. Mirativity is the grammatical marking of
unexpected information (DeLancey; 2001). The mirative meaning can be expressed by
suffix –q. The suffix -q is added to the verb stem or to the auxiliary verb in compound
tenses.
10.
11.
Zaara j-ie-na.
Zara J-come.PRF
‘Zara has come.’(and she is still here I expected her to come).
Zaara j-iena-q.
Zara J-come.PRF-MIR
‘(Wow!) Zara has come!’ (I didn’t expect her to come).
The category of mirativity in Chechen does not depend on evidentiality, and therefore
they can be combined within a verbal form.
12.
Zaara j-ie-na
xilla-q
Zara J-come-CVBant
cop.PST-MIR
‘Look! Zara was here!’ (UWPST + MIR) (I can see her special cookies in the
kitchen. (unwitnessed coming) unexpected/new situation (not concurruent with my
expectations).
13.
14.
*Zaara j-ie-na-q
Zara J-come-CVBant
‘Zara was here!’
xilla
cop.PST
Muusa-s quorash
hwa-b-iax-na
xilliera-q.
M.ERG pear.PL.NOM
here-B-pick-CVBant cop.PPL
‘Musa had picked the pears.’ (I did not see the event, but I saw a basket full of pears
and I was surprised).
3. Addressee-directed forms: There is a special use of the dative, restricted to the
addressee (2s/p, 1incl, *1excl), which can be combined with the evidential and mirative,
and which denotes that the information is no news for the hearer. The evidential dative
must immediately follow the sentence-final verb, a position, restricted for both indirect
and direct objects.
Table 3.
1p
2p
3p
SG
hwuun(a)
-
PL exl/incl
-/vain(a)
shun(a)
-
15.
Muusa hwa-v-ie-na
xilla
shun
Musa into-V-come-PRF
cop.PST
2p.DAT
‘Musa has come.’ (I knew that you expected him, but I didn’t see him)
16.
As
suuna
koch ec-na
hwuun
1s.ERG
1s.DAT
dress buy-PRF
2s.DAT
‘I bought a dress for myself.’ (+> you already knew that I was going to buy
something for myself).
17.
As
hwuuna
koch
ec-na
hwuun
1s.ERG
1s.DAT
dress.NOM buy-PRF
2s.DAT
‘I bought a dress for you.’ (+> you already knew that I was going to buy
something for you or myself.)
hwuun
18.
hwan
As
hwuuna
koch
ec-na
hwan
1s.ERG
2s.DAT
dress.NOM buy-PRF
2s.DAT
‘I bought you a dress.’ (+> you already knew that I was going to buy something
for you.)
[Itum-Kala dialect]
Conclusions:
The phenomena of evidentiality in Chechen may be grouped into three types, namely the
opposition of the witnessed/unwitnessed actions, mirativity, and addressee-directed
dative constructions. They are self-sufficient and may work independently from each
other.
Acknowledgements.
I’m very thankful to Johanna Nichols and Balthasar Bickel for their helpful comments.
*The data presented here are based on the fieldwork done in 2006/2007 funded by
HRELP, SOAS, London.
**The orthography in this handout was developed by Johanna Nichols for Ingush and
Chechen. In the case, if it is unclear, I give the IPA equivalent below:
w
[ ]
ii
[i ]
ai
[ j]
hw
[P]
ie
[i Q]
aa
[a ]
ch
[ ]
ia
[iQ]
oi
[oj].
sh
[]
e
[Q]
ei
[ej]
gh
[ ]
u
[ ]
ai
[ j]
c
[ ]
oo
ch’, k’, t’, p’ r, q’,c’
[o ]
uo
[u ]
ejective consonants
ee
[
Abbreviatios:
ant
CVB
DAT
ERG
J,V,D,B
LOC
MIR
anterior
converb
Dative
Ergative
Gender marker
Locative
mirative
NOM
PRF
PST
PPL
PSTW
sim
UW
Nominative
Perfect
Past
Pluperfect
Past Witnessed
simultanous
Unwitnessed
References:
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004 „Evidentiality“, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria. 2007 “Evidentials in Tsez.” In Guentchéva Z.,
Landaburu J. (eds). L’Énonciation médiatisée II. Le traitement épistémologique de
l’information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes. Louvain etc.: Peeters.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997 „Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information“
Linguistic typology 1: 33-52.
DeLancey, Scott. 2001 „The mirative and evidentiality“ Journal of pragmatics 33: 369382.
Friedman,Victor. 2003 “Turkish in Macedonia and Beyond: Studies in Contact, Typology
and other Phenomena in the Balkans and the Caucasus“ Wiessbaden.
Johanson, Lars & Utas, Bo.2002 “Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring
Languages”, Berlin- New York, Mouton de Gruyter
Kibrik, Alexander E.(ed.). 2001. Bagvalal. Grammar. Texts. Dictionaries. Moscow.
Nasledie.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999 „Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?“ Linguistic
Typology 3: 91-109
Tatevosov, Sergey. 2001 “From resultatives to evidentials: Multiple uses of the Perfect in
Nakh-Dagestanian languages“ Journal of Pragmatics 33: 443-464;